Stop faking enthusiasm!
Group: Members
Joined: 8-December 07
Posts: 1,659
Member Number: 3897
|
Your talking methodology!
Disclaimer: This here below is just my opinion, don't hurt me. :D
What do I mean by "talking methodology", well. I'm talking about mostly how do we talk about music. As in, you know, when you have to comment on something or just for your yourself when you're analyzing.
Personally, I'm not a fan of what I usually call "talking in numbers" as in, describing something in a way that just means nothing at all.
For example; Say you like this passage in X piece of music, and you want to say you like it, or just in general describe it in a favorable way!
"The melodious substance of which the chordal texture is composed of is very intriguing."
When I hear someone say this type of thing, my brain auto-translates it into something I can use, such as "I like this part!" Or, "I like this part, cuz of the chords!" But because of how weird it was formulated, it could also be "I don't know if like this part, but I'm interested!"
I try my best not to do this when I'm talking about music (or art in general), and clearly state if I like something and try to specify what in the music did it. "This chord progression made me cry (of joy!)" or "I stopped listening at minute 4, because the song wasn't doing anything for me."
Sure, it may not sound as pretty and artist-y, but it's a lot more straight forward, in my opinion, so therefore presumably more useful to someone listening.
Of course I don't account for people who are trained to understand such comments. Maybe I'm just an uncultured jerk, but I've read dozens of music critics, composers, ETC talk about everything from ants to airplanes when trying to describe something as simple as a nice melody or beat.
Well, I understand to some extent why a music critic will write in uselessly pretty sentences, since their job is mostly (in my opinion!) useless and undeserving (Ouch!), it might as well sound pretty. But I digress.
But when it comes to artist to artist feedback, why talk in numbers?
(To clear up why I call it "talk in numbers." I once went to a series of seminars (about music, with performances and such) and people were literally talking in numbers, as in percentages and mathematics and junk. I felt like (again) an uncultured jerk, but it sounded all super-dense and while I liked the music it was sorta impossible to tell the composer without sounding like I had no idea. It was weird and I was scared.)
I mean, when I sit down to write something, I don't usually go "I'm going to evoke the essence of pure textural synthesis!" and write, you know, music. Unless I'm trying to understand this exact phenomenon and purposely say stuff like that see if it has any effect. It usually doesn't, but I get some really nice titles out of it at least!
Out of the question of course are those kind souls who BEFORE (or after, or somewhere AROUND it) engaging in number-talk explain the context, and in such way that you can clearly understand what is being said.
For example: "The elephants in this piece symbolize the great deconstruction!" and then, "What I mean is, think of this rhythm as elephants, and they're trampling over the classical form." And what do you know, it's pretty insightful with what's happening in the music! At least if you have a little imagination~
That's both, A: Awesome because elephants are awesome, and B: Useful! And imaginative. I tend to like these people.
So, with all this said, what's YOUR take on talking/describing/ETC the good'ol art & music & stuff?
|
Jan 9 2008, 12:48 AM
) If someone wrote that stuff I probably would not be able to understand it ... and I took up a music class in college were we were taught musical terminology! 
.
Linear Mode
